Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

'pro gamers', mlg, and gettin' paid to play.

Posts

To be a sport, you must follow both criteria, not one or the other. That being, a hard line scoring system without judges determining score, and athletic ability. Gaming, in most cases, has one of those, but it fails to have the other. Thus, not a sport.

Athletic ability is most definitely not part of the definition. If a really fat guy plays baseball, he is still playing a sport, regardless of how out of shape he is or how bad at it.

What the person engaging in the activity 'is like' can have no bearing on a good definition. It's an activity that people engage in, so the definition has to come from the activity itself.

If that fat guy, see El Guapo former pitcher for the Red Sox, can throw the god damn ball that's still athletic ability. I didn't say everyone has to be at peak physical condition with 6 pack abs, I just said the ability to be athletic has to be there. El Guapo throwing a pitch 20-30 times a couple nights a week is athletic ability.

Gaming has no athletic ability to speak of, unless you're talking about DDR.

Baseball is still an athletic event, even if it's played by fatasses. You don't have to be physically fit to play a sport necessarily, but the physicality is part and parcel of what is and isn't a sport. The strict rules and competitive nature also go towards defining an activities as sports, but the physical part is what delineates them from other games.

Keep in mind that "sport" isn't some pedestal that makes one activity superior to another. All sports are just games. The distinction I and others have been making is that all games are not sports. I admire brilliant chess wizards over linebackers, but chess still isn't a sport.

The line does get blurry with several examples, like the aforementioned DDR. I wouldn't say DDR is a sport, but that's just because it doesn't really have a greatly structured set of rules. It's certainly athletic. And, like I said before, just because the line gets blurred at some level doesn't mean the distinction itself is useless. There are organisms that blur the line between plant and animal, but there is still a distinction between the two that makes sense.

I guess it's subjective, but I don't see that as a greatly structured set of rules. I see that as a rule. That's like saying a fight club is a sport, when it's really just a place where people hit each other. You can do whatever the hell you want in DDR as long as you're hitting the buttons at some point. You could get a robot spider to hit the buttons for you and you'd still be following the rule.

edit: If they held, like a tournament for it, and added on a bunch of rules as to how you're allowed to hit the buttons, what with, etc, etc, it would be more like an actual sport. Again, the line gets blurry for certain examples.

To be a sport, you must follow both criteria, not one or the other. That being, a hard line scoring system without judges determining score, and athletic ability. Gaming, in most cases, has one of those, but it fails to have the other. Thus, not a sport.

Athletic ability is most definitely not part of the definition. If a really fat guy plays baseball, he is still playing a sport, regardless of how out of shape he is or how bad at it.

What the person engaging in the activity 'is like' can have no bearing on a good definition. It's an activity that people engage in, so the definition has to come from the activity itself.

Athletic ability seems to be the wrong term, but I see what he's getting at. Sports involve athleticism - physical exertion and activity.

I guess it's subjective, but I don't see that as a greatly structured set of rules. I see that as a rule. That's like saying a fight club is a sport, when it's really just a place where people hit each other. You can do whatever the hell you want in DDR as long as you're hitting the buttons at some point. You could get a robot spider to hit the buttons for you and you'd still be following the rule.

Heh, and you can't make a robot spider to play football?

Now it just seems like you're looking for a reason to disqualify it. If it doesn't have more than one rule, it's not a sport?

Look, I'm not against it being a sport. I'm not some absurd gamesist or anything. I just see think that DDR has more going against it on the "sport" front than its athletic nature. You can sit on the side of the game pad and mash it with your hands, and still technically be following the rules. Sports don't generally make an allowance for their players taking a lazy way out of it. As I said before, if DDR actually had a set of rules dictating how one proceeds to gain points other than "hit the according button at the right time", it would be more akin to a sport. Right now, it's in between recreational dancing and a game.

But I do find the entire argument amusing, that it can't be a sport unless it has athleticism. This is not directed at you, but rather the participants of the thread who seem offended that gaming could be considered amongst the likes of baseball and football.

I definitely find the great offense a little silly. I mean, football is just a game. The sport distinction isn't one of legitimacy, just activity. That people take some games more seriously than others is just a cultural thing, and I can certainly imagine a world where games like chess and starcraft are more highly regarded than physical games like football.

Whether that world will actually come to be is a highly debatable assumption, but the point remains.

You all know, at this point you're just arguing the definition of it, and not the validity. As well, the term e-sport is corny as hell and annoys me when it spawns others like e-athlete or cyberathlete, but it's fitting and distinct.

I guess it's subjective, but I don't see that as a greatly structured set of rules. I see that as a rule. That's like saying a fight club is a sport, when it's really just a place where people hit each other. You can do whatever the hell you want in DDR as long as you're hitting the buttons at some point. You could get a robot spider to hit the buttons for you and you'd still be following the rule.

Heh, and you can't make a robot spider to play football?

Now it just seems like you're looking for a reason to disqualify it. If it doesn't have more than one rule, it's not a sport?

Look, I'm not against it being a sport. I'm not some absurd gamesist or anything. I just see think that DDR has more going against it on the "sport" front than its athletic nature. You can sit on the side of the game pad and mash it with your hands, and still technically be following the rules. Sports don't generally make an allowance for their players taking a lazy way out of it. As I said before, if DDR actually had a set of rules dictating how one proceeds to gain points other than "hit the according button at the right time", it would be more akin to a sport. Right now, it's in between recreational dancing and a game.

DDR tournaments most certainly have multiple rules about what you can and cannot do.

Of course you can sit beside the machine and mash it with your hands if you're not in a tournament or any kind of league but that doesn't prove or mean anything in regards to a real competition.

Maybe you can argue that there is no standard set of rules for the game, and that's most likely true, but that doesn't really say much either. Any sport has multiple different rules based on what league you are in, your age and what country, or state you happen to be in.

All MLG Halo is let's remove everything that's interesting, start everyone with the most boring gun, and our entire "Top 10" list for each week is just a bunch of multi kill streaks. Yay?

You sound like you have a grudge against them. The BR is actually the most interesting gun in the game, you know why? Because that is an opinion. It is the gun that encourages team work and skill the most without being overpowered and that is why they use it. You know what makes Halo interesting? It isn't flaming swords or bullshit powerups, it is the game itself. Strategies and skills that evolve out of the game, there is nothing more satisfying then getting a killing spree off 4 headshots from one clip while your team rushes in for the flag.

All MLG Halo is let's remove everything that's interesting, start everyone with the most boring gun, and our entire "Top 10" list for each week is just a bunch of multi kill streaks. Yay?

You sound like you have a grudge against them. The BR is actually the most interesting gun in the game, you know why? Because that is an opinion. It is the gun that encourages team work and skill the most without being overpowered and that is why they use it. You know what makes Halo interesting? It isn't flaming swords or bullshit powerups, it is the game itself. Strategies and skills that evolve out of the game, there is nothing more satisfying then getting a killing spree off 4 headshots from one clip while your team rushes in for the flag.

All MLG Halo is let's remove everything that's interesting, start everyone with the most boring gun, and our entire "Top 10" list for each week is just a bunch of multi kill streaks. Yay?

You sound like you have a grudge against them. The BR is actually the most interesting gun in the game, you know why? Because that is an opinion. It is the gun that encourages team work and skill the most without being overpowered and that is why they use it. You know what makes Halo interesting? It isn't flaming swords or bullshit powerups, it is the game itself. Strategies and skills that evolve out of the game, there is nothing more satisfying then getting a killing spree off 4 headshots from one clip while your team rushes in for the flag.

Backstabbing 4 people in a row in Team fortress 2.

Eating an awesome cake.

Bangin hot chicks.

Scoring the winning goal.

You've made it readily apparent that watching gaming bores you. I'm sorry it does, but I find little use in begrudging the entertainment source of others.

And Fizban, while I agree with your rationality behind the use of the BR, I disagree with your implication that extraneous elements like power-ups make a game bad/unentertaining. Look at Quake; one of the few deathmatch games in pro circuits and one of the most skillful and entertaining (in my opinion) games out there. The crowds also seem a lot more enthusiastic than CS fans.

What makes a game bad is random elements interfering with gameplay (read: WoW).

The BR is a shitty boring power weapon. This is undisputable fact. Next thing I know you'll be saying that the Klobb was the best weapon for Goldeneye.

Of course if I ever criticize MLG, I just have a grudge against them. Certainly couldn't come from me actually playing their gametype and then discovering why it's population is one of the lowest in matchmaking. Of course your reply will be "most people play MLG in customs", and my answer will be "That still doesn't change anything". Because I pretty much see fizban's arguement ctrl-c ctrl-v'd all the time on the internet. Actually support your argument with your own words, opinions, and findings, instead of just parroting.

All MLG Halo is let's remove everything that's interesting, start everyone with the most boring gun, and our entire "Top 10" list for each week is just a bunch of multi kill streaks. Yay?

You sound like you have a grudge against them. The BR is actually the most interesting gun in the game, you know why? Because that is an opinion. It is the gun that encourages team work and skill the most without being overpowered and that is why they use it. You know what makes Halo interesting? It isn't flaming swords or bullshit powerups, it is the game itself. Strategies and skills that evolve out of the game, there is nothing more satisfying then getting a killing spree off 4 headshots from one clip while your team rushes in for the flag.

Backstabbing 4 people in a row in Team fortress 2.

Eating an awesome cake.

Bangin hot chicks.

Scoring the winning goal.

You've made it readily apparent that watching gaming bores you. I'm sorry it does, but I find little use in begrudging the entertainment source of others.

And Fizban, while I agree with your rationality behind the use of the BR, I disagree with your implication that extraneous elements like power-ups make a game bad/unentertaining. Look at Quake; one of the few deathmatch games in pro circuits and one of the most skillful and entertaining (in my opinion) games out there. The crowds also seem a lot more enthusiastic than CS fans.

What makes a game bad is random elements interfering with gameplay (read: WoW).

Sorry I did not mean to imply that any powerup is bad, just that it should add the the strategy or teamwork of the game. Power ups play an important role, just like a power weapon does it is something on the map that has to be controlled and once controlled offers your team a specific advantage that you quickly have to chose how you want to use. It makes the game more interesting and in the case of the MLG rule set encourages changing team tactics and strategy.

The BR is a shitty boring power weapon. This is undisputable fact. Next thing I know you'll be saying that the Klobb was the best weapon for Goldeneye.

Of course if I ever criticize MLG, I just have a grudge against them. Certainly couldn't come from me actually playing their gametype and then discovering why it's population is one of the lowest in matchmaking. Of course your reply will be "most people play MLG in customs", and my answer will be "That still doesn't change anything". Because I pretty much see fizban's arguement ctrl-c ctrl-v'd all the time on the internet. Actually support your argument with your own words, opinions, and findings, instead of just parroting.

I am well aware of the MLG Halo 3 rules, the only powerups are camo and a 2x OS (might be wrong but afaik) so I am not wrong at all. The BR is not a power weapon, there are many maps with a tleast six on them. What the hell am I parroting? You are putting words in my mouth in this hypothetical conversation that is suppose to happen sometime in the future. You seem to have a grudge against MLG because your posts come out as irate and somewhat jumbled. You seem to be just hammering away at your keyboard in anger at a gametype like it somehow ruined your childhood. I do not want to make thing argument personal though so lets drop that part here.

You're right that in Halo specifically, the powerups aren't very game breaking and just a clear cut advantage . In Quake, the powerups are everything but also require you to keep a smooth motion through the map. That's another topic in itself, though.

Also, Quake is probably more physically demanding than rugbyLow Sensitivity

I'm personally not a big fan of the MLG because they muck around with too many rules to balance the game, and I generally don't like the decisions they make.

I was also annoyed how like, a month after the release of GoW2 MLG had all these rules to try to make it just like GoW1, it's like...why not give people some time to actually figure the game out?

Because that would actually make sense. They just can't accept and work within a game, they constantly have to try to turn it into first or previous game in the series.

MLG rules in Halo 2 were a failed attempt at turning it into Halo 1.

Halo 3 settings are a failed attempt at turning 3 into 2.

But I guess this is what happens when you only have one or two guys determining the settings with no actual community testing. All 3 Halo games are completely different but they have to try to hammer a square peg into a triangular hole. Don't know why they just don't spend their gobs of money and have a developer finally make their "meta game" an actual game so the rest of us can actually enjoy Halo.

I'm personally not a big fan of the MLG because they muck around with too many rules to balance the game, and I generally don't like the decisions they make.

I was also annoyed how like, a month after the release of GoW2 MLG had all these rules to try to make it just like GoW1, it's like...why not give people some time to actually figure the game out?

To be fair The Lancer was designed with competetive play in mind so that was an obvious choice. I do agree though, I think they took it a little too far with a lot of the weapons. I had never played in a league where the standard ruleset/weapon set is so different from tournament play. I think that is partly the fault of consoles and the games though where casual play is favored highly over competitive play.

I'm personally not a big fan of the MLG because they muck around with too many rules to balance the game, and I generally don't like the decisions they make.

I was also annoyed how like, a month after the release of GoW2 MLG had all these rules to try to make it just like GoW1, it's like...why not give people some time to actually figure the game out?

Because that would actually make sense. They just can't accept and work within a game, they constantly have to try to turn it into first or previous game in the series.

MLG rules in Halo 2 were a failed attempt at turning it into Halo 1.

Halo 3 settings are a failed attempt at turning 3 into 2.

But I guess this is what happens when you only have one or two guys determining the settings with no actual community testing. All 3 Halo games are completely different but they have to try to hammer a square peg into a triangular hole. Don't know why they just don't spend their gobs of money and have a developer finally make their "meta game" an actual game so the rest of us can actually enjoy Halo.

Someone earlier stated that there are very few star athletes in competitive gaming because the games change so fast and the games are all so different that skills do not always transfer to the new game. Well isn't MLG solving part of that problem by keeping the game as similar as possible?

I'll also add that the rule sets stated are often tried and tested to make sure it's very, very balanced. They don't use vehicles in MLG Halo because as soon as a good team controls them, the game is completely one sided, and no longer fun to watch or play in. Gears of War isn't a good competitive game in the slightest (I'm not saying Halo is either, just so the comprehension-less folk I've encountered here don't pounce on me) in my opinion, so I won't comment on the rules made there.

David Sirlin talks a lot about extra rules being there for a purpose, and sometimes intruding, as well as a lot of made-up rules players define to make themselves not feel bad about losing.

As a random thought, I wonder if we'll ever see games specifically designed with the goal of being tournament level, televised, and long lasting, designed with the goal of being a game for 'pro-gamers'.

Starcraft 2 might be like that, but I'd say it's more like Quake is since they can change anything about it. Most of Blizzard's work with SC seems to be all their doing and not really trying to appease the "pro gamers". Fixing actual bugs and needed balances instead of patching in mlg-requests.

Like the people that apparently want Bungie to regress Halo back to hitscan and "remove the BR spread", even though the BR had a spread in Halo 2..

I'll also add that the rule sets stated are often tried and tested to make sure it's very, very balanced. They don't use vehicles in MLG Halo because as soon as a good team controls them, the game is completely one sided, and no longer fun to watch or play in. Gears of War isn't a good competitive game in the slightest (I'm not saying Halo is either, just so the comprehension-less folk I've encountered here don't pounce on me) in my opinion, so I won't comment on the rules made there.

David Sirlin talks a lot about extra rules being there for a purpose, and sometimes intruding, as well as a lot of made-up rules players define to make themselves not feel bad about losing.

And if the other team failed to use or control the anti-vehicle weapons in a Halo match, that's their fault that the other team's Warthog is railroading them.

Versus most MLG maps and gametypes where once you get to a certain spot, it's amazingly easy to spawnkill the other team, to the point where I can actually throw a grenade at their spawn point before they even appear and they'll get hit by it as they spawn, and I only need one shot from the BR to kill them. But I guess since I'm on foot instead of a Warthog, it's "balanced".

Wait, are we saying something has to be physically demanding to be a sport?

Because uh, Chess is a recognized sport by the International Olympic Committee.

So, there goes that theory.

I think that's probably a sillier argument than just defining it by physical activity. This amounts to "well, that guy says it's a sport, and he's good at them!"

Here's my problem with using the IOC as a benchmark. They accept chess as an Olympic Sport, but not other board games with equally extensive histories and potentially deeper strategic possibility. It's basically a political organization, and they vote on which games to consider as official Olympic sports after being petitioned by official representatives of the games in question. Something doesn't just become a sport when some people you've never heard of vote for it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is "Olympic Sport" is not the same as the plain old word "sport." The Olympic committee is not a dictionary.

As a random thought, I wonder if we'll ever see games specifically designed with the goal of being tournament level, televised, and long lasting, designed with the goal of being a game for 'pro-gamers'.

The closest thing I can think of thus far is probably Starcraft 2.

I think Starcraft2 is the best example that anyone's going to get. I think Street Fighter 2 has become that way as well, but SC2 has been designed with competitive tournament play in mind more or less since they've started working on it, from what I understand.

I'll also add that the rule sets stated are often tried and tested to make sure it's very, very balanced. They don't use vehicles in MLG Halo because as soon as a good team controls them, the game is completely one sided, and no longer fun to watch or play in. Gears of War isn't a good competitive game in the slightest (I'm not saying Halo is either, just so the comprehension-less folk I've encountered here don't pounce on me) in my opinion, so I won't comment on the rules made there.

David Sirlin talks a lot about extra rules being there for a purpose, and sometimes intruding, as well as a lot of made-up rules players define to make themselves not feel bad about losing.

And if the other team failed to use or control the anti-vehicle weapons in a Halo match, that's their fault that the other team's Warthog is railroading them.

Versus most MLG maps and gametypes where once you get to a certain spot, it's amazingly easy to spawnkill the other team, to the point where I can actually throw a grenade at their spawn point before they even appear and they'll get hit by it as they spawn, and I only need one shot from the BR to kill them. But I guess since I'm on foot instead of a Warthog, it's "balanced".

Look, the stupid crap is removed from MLG rules because it produces stupid, non-fun, less competitive games that reward random spawning over skill.

We get it. You don't like MLG. Guess that means you can not go to any MLG tournaments, not join MLG matchmaking, and then stop complaining. No one's forcing you to play MLG rules.

I'll also add that the rule sets stated are often tried and tested to make sure it's very, very balanced. They don't use vehicles in MLG Halo because as soon as a good team controls them, the game is completely one sided, and no longer fun to watch or play in. Gears of War isn't a good competitive game in the slightest (I'm not saying Halo is either, just so the comprehension-less folk I've encountered here don't pounce on me) in my opinion, so I won't comment on the rules made there.

David Sirlin talks a lot about extra rules being there for a purpose, and sometimes intruding, as well as a lot of made-up rules players define to make themselves not feel bad about losing.

And if the other team failed to use or control the anti-vehicle weapons in a Halo match, that's their fault that the other team's Warthog is railroading them.

Versus most MLG maps and gametypes where once you get to a certain spot, it's amazingly easy to spawnkill the other team, to the point where I can actually throw a grenade at their spawn point before they even appear and they'll get hit by it as they spawn, and I only need one shot from the BR to kill them. But I guess since I'm on foot instead of a Warthog, it's "balanced".

Look, the stupid crap is removed from MLG rules because it produces stupid, non-fun, less competitive games that reward random spawning over skill.

We get it. You don't like MLG. Guess that means you can not go to any MLG tournaments, not join MLG matchmaking, and then stop complaining. No one's forcing you to play MLG rules.

Halo 3's Bungie-made gametypes are more competitive than MLG. The better team always wins in Bungie's gametypes, whereas MLG gametypes it's whoever can get into the spawncamping positions first. And in MLG you're not punished for losing your base because you can just shoot me across the map with the BR as I'm taking your flag.

Why don't you just admit that MLG players just don't like to have to deal with changes in combat flow and prefer boring, completely 100% predictable games that I never lose unless I'm playing against 50 restart accounts?

I mean come on man, the rank spread in MLG's playlist is a reverse bell curve. IE, broken. Whereas Bungie's slayer playlist is an almost-perfect bell curve, ie not broken.

I'll also add that the rule sets stated are often tried and tested to make sure it's very, very balanced. They don't use vehicles in MLG Halo because as soon as a good team controls them, the game is completely one sided, and no longer fun to watch or play in. Gears of War isn't a good competitive game in the slightest (I'm not saying Halo is either, just so the comprehension-less folk I've encountered here don't pounce on me) in my opinion, so I won't comment on the rules made there.

David Sirlin talks a lot about extra rules being there for a purpose, and sometimes intruding, as well as a lot of made-up rules players define to make themselves not feel bad about losing.

And if the other team failed to use or control the anti-vehicle weapons in a Halo match, that's their fault that the other team's Warthog is railroading them.

Versus most MLG maps and gametypes where once you get to a certain spot, it's amazingly easy to spawnkill the other team, to the point where I can actually throw a grenade at their spawn point before they even appear and they'll get hit by it as they spawn, and I only need one shot from the BR to kill them. But I guess since I'm on foot instead of a Warthog, it's "balanced".

Look, the stupid crap is removed from MLG rules because it produces stupid, non-fun, less competitive games that reward random spawning over skill.

We get it. You don't like MLG. Guess that means you can not go to any MLG tournaments, not join MLG matchmaking, and then stop complaining. No one's forcing you to play MLG rules.

Halo 3's Bungie-made gametypes are more competitive than MLG. The better team always wins in Bungie's gametypes, whereas MLG gametypes it's whoever can get into the spawncamping positions first. And in MLG you're not punished for losing your base because you can just shoot me across the map with the BR as I'm taking your flag.

Why don't you just admit that MLG players just don't like to have to deal with changes in combat flow and prefer boring, completely 100% predictable games?

I don't think you can support these claims in the slightest bit. Did you hear that football is played on the same field with the same rules every game? Crazy, isn't it. I also heard chess is played on the same board every time.

It's not about watching the game engine do a bunch of shit, it's about watching appreciable talent. I'll say it again, Halo 3 is not the best competitive game but it (next to fighting games, in my opinion) seems to be going the furthest for our region. That's the only reason I defend it, and I think it's very, very underrated by elitist gamers.

Oh here comes the football argument! I love this one. I'm suprised you didn't use the "49 - 49 score" one, I have a response ready for that one too.

Chess is never against the same person or against the same opening. Whereas MLG games are between the same 8 teams over and over again. But that's beyond the point, since high-level chess these days are who can memorize more move sequences and not actual skill anymore.

Football plays on a field with consistent rules, just like Bungie's gametypes and MLG. The thing is, the fields are never actually the same. You could be playing a dome. You could be playing outside. It could be sunny outside, it could be raining. You could be playing in a heavy snow. Your quarterback could suddenly sprain his elbow halfway through the game, or be suspended the day before for something. The other coach could come out with a completely different defense than you were expecting. When you go to kick a field goal, you could have 40mph crosswinds or none at all.

A football player and coach have to be ready for just about anything to happen. In MLG Halo 3, everyone starts with the same boring weapon, runs the same 110% speed, and deals the same damage, and since there's no equipment whoever starts firing first wins. You don't see the NFL giving slower players Segways so they're just as fast as the fastest players, you don't see them forcing every quarterback to throw the ball the same amount of yards forward, and you don't see them removing penalties (same as equipment, a 'random get out of jail free card') to even the field.

I seem to remember a quote about Quake 3 being developed with competitive play in mind, but hell if I can find it (and hell if they delivered ).

Yeah, there are a lot of developers that say they're building their games for tournament play, but I don't think as many actually have the likelihood of following through with that as much as Blizzard. Relic has even said that Dawn of War 2 was being made with the idea fostering of long-term professional level play, and look how that has turned out so far.

In the end, I'm not even sure these promises are a good thing. The Natural Selection mod for Half-Life arguably just got worse after the lead devs started listening too much to tourney players.